Reporting the House vote on the BBL: Legitimizing media bias

By Luis Adrian Hidalgo

CMFR MONITORED the reporting on the debates and voting on the draft Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) from March 18 to 20 by TV news programs TV Patrol (ABS-CBN), Network News (CNN Philippines), 24 Oras (GMA-7), and Aksyon (TV5), and by the newspapers The Philippine Star, Manila Bulletin, and Philippine Daily Inquirer, as well as selected news websites.

SIDE BAR Other Voices on the BBL: Helping Develop Public Understanding RARELY DID the media organizations monitored present the views of those directly affected by the voting’s outcome, such as the indigenous peoples’ communities, the people of Mindanao in general and those living in the autonomous region, and of course, the MILF. When some stories included these parties in the news discourse, the quotes were relegated to the end of the account, or the stories themselves were in the inside pages. Some examples: Philippine Daily Inquirer “BBL changes 90% OK with still ‘uneasy’ MILF” (May 20, 2015) The Philippine Star “BBL falls short of international standards for indigenous peoples” (May 24, 2015) “MILF chairman: Don’t change BBL” (May 20, 2015) Manila Bulletin “All systems go for Maguindanao Summit” (May 23, 2015) “Maguindanao sets peace summit to tackle BBL issues” (May 22, 2015) “Ad Hoc approval of BBL draws mixed reaction” (May 21, 2015) “MILF, MNLF air appeal for ‘ideal’ BBL” (May 20, 2015) “Peace assembly for BBL in NorCot” (May 18, 2015) “Zambo tri-people sectors rally behind BBL” (May 17, 2015) What most media organizations lacked in their reporting were provided by other, more thoughtful journalists. READ MORE

Related Articles: Former Chief Justice to Congress: ‘Be peacemakers, peace builders’ Sidebar: Peace Council presents BBL report Coverage of the BBL (7-14 April 2015): Bias and Prejudice against Bangsamoro Media coverage of the Mamasapano Clash: Unethical, inflammatory, sensationalized The Media and Peace Reporting Reporting Peace: Writing the First Draft of History PJR Reports November-December 2011 Philippine Journalism Review February 2002 Philippine Journalism Review January 2004 PJR Reports September 2008

What emerged from the week-long monitor (May 18-25) was disturbing. The media bias against the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) triggered by the January 25 Mamasapano incident shaped the coverage of the debates and the voting in terms of the selection of news sources on which the media chose to base their reports.  The bias against the Moro people is as deeply embedded among the media as it is among many members of Congress, which raises the question of whether such biases in the media, Congress and, as a result, among many citizens, will continue to haunt every attempt by government or other groups at ending or mitigating conflict in the Philippine setting.

The BBL in Context

Almost every major news organization reported the House of Representatives Ad Hoc Committee voting on the draft BBL from May 18 to 20. This was after a week-long delay as the Committee Chairperson, Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, postponed the proceedings to make way for last-minute amendments proposed by members. With 50 votes for, 17 against, and one abstention, the BBL was passed by the committee. Discussion of the bill in the plenary was scheduled to begin on June 1.

The draft law was submitted to Congress to implement the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB) that the Government of the Philippines (GPH) and the MILF signed on March 27, 2014, to replace the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).

RA 6734, known as the Organic Act of the ARMM, the first law to grant autonomy for Muslim Mindanao was passed on August 1, 1989.  The BBL when passed will be the first to be approved by the Bangsamoro represented by the MILF.  The amending law, RA 9054 or the Expanded Organic Act for the ARMM, was prepared without the participation of the MNLF but was signed anyway by Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) founding chairman Nur Misuari.

The draft BBL is under close scrutiny by lawmakers because of issues raised by the disastrous January 25 police operation in Mamasapano, which took the lives of at least 67 people, including non-combatants.

Because of the death of 44 SAF police officers, some legislators expressed doubts about whether government should proceed with the legislation, because, they said, the MILF could not be trusted. The media’s emphasis on acts of violence, their reports on alleged atrocities, and their framing of these reports nurtured the surge in anti-MILF and anti-autonomy sentiments in Congress as well as among the public. The chair of the Senate Committee on Local Government, Sen. Ferdinand Marcos Jr., for example, almost immediately decided to halt deliberations on the bill in the Senate, while un-contextualized reports emphasizing the alleged treachery of the MILF during the encounter helped provoke public outrage against the group and against the BBL.

Seven government agencies and the MILF conducted separate fact-finding inquiries on the Mamasapano incident to establish liability for the tragedy, including the Senate of the Philippines, the House of Representatives, the MILF, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Monitoring Team (IMT) of the peace process, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), the PNP Board of Inquiry (PNP-BOI), and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

Echoes of Early Mamasapano Coverage

Echoing what some of the media had claimed from Day 1 of the incident, the Senate report tagged the Mamasapano incident as a “massacre” supposedly due to the manner in which the 44 SAF commandos were killed. The CHR, however, maintained that the incident was an “encounter.” Meanwhile, the PNP-BOI, IMT and DOJ reports saw both government troops and the MILF as liable. Eventually, however, the inquiry reports agreed that Oplan Exodus, as executed in Mamasapano on January 25, was a botched operation to arrest a known terrorist in the area, because of the lack of necessary coordination with the MILF, as prescribed by ceasefire mechanism, to avoid an encounter with it and other armed groups in the area.

The bloody encounter happened during a period of relative peace, with ceasefire protocols already in place for armed groups to observe in their movements and operations. The inquiry reports also pointed out that other armed groups, including private armies, were active in the area.

Eventually, media attention shifted to the resumed deliberations on the draft Bangsamoro Basic Law. The sessions in the Senate and the House echoed with harsh criticism from the lawmakers, and the media reflected this in their reports. Particular provisions were criticized as unconstitutional for supposedly forming a “sub-state,” creating special bodies in the Bangsamoro region, and for requiring a protocol to guide coordination between the AFP and the Bangsamoro government the BBL would establish.

On March 27, President Aquino invited leaders from the private sector to evaluate the BBL. The Peace Council presented its report before the House Ad Hoc Committee on the BBL led by Congressman Rufus Rodriguez on April 27, and before the Senate Committee on Local Government headed by Senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr. on May 5. It was first presented to the public in a forum held in Quezon City on May 7 (CMFR, “Former Chief Justice to Congress: ‘Be peacemakers, peace builders,’” May 19, 2015).

The Peace Council report said that the BBL is acceptable and deserving of support and presented arguments to defend some provisions which critics said were unconstitutional. The Peace Council also recognized that the draft law is not perfect and recommended refinements and changes in terms used to assure its constitutionality. The Peace Council findings involved former signatories to the 1987 Constitution and former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Hilario Davide Jr. But while there were earlier reports on the Peace Council’s  findings, views and suggestions, there was no reference to them in the reporting on the House vote on the BBL, whether in terms of background or context, or in the questions reporters raised during interviews with predominantly anti-BBL sources.

Counting the Vote—and anti-BBL quotes

The media reported the amendments proposed by the House Committee. But when reporting on the vote, the TV news programs limited themselves only to a count of the vote, accompanied by ample quotes from interviews with congressmen who voted against the BBL draft.

These reports did not refer how amendments made addressed the opposition to certain BBL provisions. Neither was there any effort to ask those interviewed whether they considered these amendments at all in deciding their vote, or whether they had considered the findings and suggestions of the Peace Council when casting their vote.

For example, it would have helped if the media had asked both those who voted for as well as against the BBL such questions as:

What are your objections to the draft law?

Were these objections, among them the Constitutionality of the draft BBL, not addressed by amendments that have already been included in the House?

The Peace Council who worked to evaluate the provisions were invited to the House to present their findings, with recommendations for changes in language and for further clarification. Have you considered these changes in the draft law when you voted against it?

How does the draft law affect your constituency?

Are your constituents informed about the BBL and the background history of conflict in the region?

This line of questioning would have helped the public appreciate the basis for the opposition, acquaint the public with significant efforts by the private sector, as well as members of the House to address criticism of the BBL.  The answers to these questions would help the public to judge on their own whether the votes against the draft were based on sound reservations, thus raising the reporting to a more substantive level of discourse.

The reports in the networks also fell short of providing the background information that would have helped the public to better understand why certain congressmen were focused on opposing the bill despite the changes.

The reporting was somewhat different in the newspapers. The news reports by The Philippine Star, Manila Bulletin, and the Philippine Daily Inquirer also relied heavily on sources at the House of Representatives. But while these were, for the most part, narrations of the events that transpired during the voting period, there were also accounts of the debates among the congressmen who proposed changes to the draft BBL.

The reports on both TV and print prominently featured the alleged efforts of Malacañang to “railroad” the voting, including allegations that those who had voted for the BBL had been bribed.  These were mentioned without citing any evidence.

The story’s prominence in the three broadsheets monitored fluctuated during the monitor period. Reports on the House voting, or of the House-approved draft BBL for that matter, did not remain long in the headlines. Related, after-the-voting stories were moved to the inside pages later in the week.

Implications of Revisions and Amendments

The news reports succeeded in keeping track of the amendments proposed by the committee, but failed to provide information on the implications of the changes the House lawmakers had approved.

During the voting period, there were opportunities for the media to discuss pertinent issues related to the draft BBL. One example was the Bulletin’s report on the rejection of the proposals by Cotabato second district representative Nancy Catamco which sought to address issues on identity, and  respect for indigenous peoples’ (IP) right to self-determination and  ancestral domain, which had been raised by IP groups (Manila Bulletin, “Tears, walk out threat by Mindanao solons mark House voting on the BBL,” May 19, 2015). The Bulletin had the chance to discuss how the rejection of Catamco’s amendment would affect IP communities, but decided to focus on her frustration and her bursting into tears instead.

The media also missed the opportunity to connect the amendments made by the House to the terms of agreement which the government had signed to in the CAB. From the way the media reported it, the House discussion might as well have happened in a vacuum, disconnected from the continuum of policy steps to fulfill the Constitution’s mandate to create an autonomous region for the Bangsamoro.

Media interviewers did not seem informed of this context, or simply failed to include this in the questions they asked. During the period monitored, most of the reports frequently quoted prominent personalities participating in the voting. The selection of those interviewed, who were mostly legislators critical of the BBL,  indicated a bias for personalities the media themselves had built up before the public, and who were mostly legislators critical of the BBL.

The reports quoted those opposed to the passage of the BBL for reasons such as the legality and constitutionality of some parts of the BBL, and trust issues with the MILF. At the beginning of the voting period, the reportage was limited mostly to quoting those lawmakers who disapproved of the chairperson and vice chairperson’s handling of the voting process.  This suggests that the media were for the most part reinforcing and legitimizing their own biases against the BBL by, first of all, amply quoting those opposed to it prior to the debates, and then concentrating once more on interviewing practically the same sources who, in varying degrees, were prominently featured in much of the news programs and news pages for their opposition to the bill.

With the exception of Ad Hoc Committee Chair Rufus Rodriguez, no representative who voted for the BBL was interviewed.  Although Rodriguez did see the draft through the committee, however, he had earlier expressed opposition to the BBL, which prior to the debates put him in the media agenda.

Some of the anti-BBL quotes reported were the following:

“Babaliwalain na ang 48 hearings, tapos 2 minutes na discussion, paano tayo nalagay sa ganitong kalagayan, Mr. Chair? Bakit tayo biglang nagmamadali ngayon? (Rep. NeriColmenares)

“Mr. Chair, this is uncalled for, this is really railroading.” (Rep. Celso Lobregat)

“Kahit anong amendment pa ang gusto mong isalang, kapag wala ito doon sa sinasabing version ng chairman at vice chairman, sa tingin nga namin ay ito yung Malacañang version, hindi na sila makikinig.” (Rep. Carlos Zarate)

Later reports also quoted lawmakers and other personalities who aired their concerns regarding the turn of events, among them those who claimed that the House was ignoring the sentiments of the citizenry.

“It is a sold-out peace. This is a glaring example the members of Congress were not respecting the voice of the people. Remember ‘salus populi suprema lex’ or ‘vox populi vox deus’ (the voice of the people is the voice of God).” (Pedro Rufu Soliven, Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry regional chairperson for Western Mindanao)

“BBL failed to resolve the roots of the conflict. That is why there will still be war. We missed our chance for peace because Malacañang corrupted it.” (Rep. Neri Colmenares)

“Ngayon, ibibigay mo sa kaniya yung napakalaking responsibilidad. Napakalaking resources na wala naman silang history sa pagpapatakbo ng isang lokal na gobyerno. Provided na yung block grant should not be used in buying arms, explosives and ammunitons. Kasi yun ang worry natin. Because if we will not put safeguard there, what will stop them to buy firearms? What will stop them from buying explosives?” (Rep. Gary Alejano)

(Alejano made a similar statement in an interview with ANC on May 21. In explaining why he voted “no,” Alejano cited trust issues with the MILF that are “still not resolved,” asserting that the MILF is yet to return the seized firearms of the SAF commandos who died in the botched Mamasapano operation.)

All of the above reflected the deeply embedded “dis-trust” of the Bangsamoro and the MILF in the media. The focus of the media on this distrust or prejudice could prevent any achievement of genuine autonomy, as the policy would be shaped by the continuing failure to accept the Moros as the equals of other Filipinos.

Media coverage has sustained opposition to the BBL by harping on the repeated claim that the BBL does not solve the broader problems in development and governance.  This issue had been taken up by other expert sources, not just the Peace Council members whose discussions drew from 136 participants, which include religious leaders, civil society representatives, businessmen, and lawyers, who had been working on the issues of conflict.

But this spate of reportage did not include this reference and the significant insight that the BBL is not being proposed as the solution to all problems. The BBL is designed to address the issues of conflict involving the MILF, an armed group which has chosen to participate in a process to discuss genuine autonomy as a reason for them to lay down arms. While the MILF is not the only source of conflict in Mindanao, it remains an armed force of significant power through its command over 30,000 fighters.  This and other issues of justice and the region’s lack of development were hardly touched in the coverage of the vote.